Ontology-Based Personalized Cognitive Behavioural Plans for Patients with Mild Depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) is an action-oriented psychotherapy that combines cognitive and behavioural techniques for psychosocial treatment for depression, and is considered by many to be the golden standard in psychotherapy. More recently, computerized CBT (CCBT) has been deployed to help increase availability and access to this evidence-based therapy. In this vein, a CBT ontology, as a shared common understanding of the domain, can facilitate the aggregation, verification, and operationalization of computerized CBT knowledge. Moreover, as opposed to black-box applications, ontology-enabled systems allow recommended, evidence-based treatment interventions to be traced back to the corresponding psychological concepts. We used a Knowledge Management approach to synthesize and computerize CBT knowledge from multiple sources into a CBT ontology, which allows generating personalized action plans for treating mild depression, using the Web Ontology Language (OWL) and Semantic Web Rule Language (SWRL). We performed a formative evaluation of the CBT ontology in terms of its completeness, consistency, and conciseness.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".